Is Distribution Dead?

It’s difficult to talk to any owner of a small distribution business without hearing complaints about competition from the Internet. Their criticisms are pretty universal, regardless of the goods being distributed.

  • “Customers call with prices they claim to have found on the web, and expect me to match them.”
  •  “People buy things from online vendors, and expect me to honor the warranty.”
  • I tried putting up a web site, but it only attracted people who called to ask for a better price.”
  • “I can’t compete with vendors who carry no inventory and only drop ship when they get an order.”
  • “I can’t use my website to compete on price, because my regular customers might see it.”
  • “I get calls from people who try to self-install equipment purchased over the Internet, and then get themselves into trouble. If I charge a lot they are angry. If I only charge my regular installation fee without selling the equipment, I lose money.”

All these complaints are true, but they don’t explain why distributors remain one of the better selling small businesses in the country. Unless we figure that business buyers are universally strategy-challenged, why would they still seek businesses that are getting crushed by the World Wide Web?

The business school definition of a distributor is “someone who provides time and place utility.” In other words, you have the product the customer seeks, when and where he seeks it. Cleary, the customer can’t buy on the Internet if he really needs it now.

Small distributors can’t fight back on price. Their best weapon against the Internet is service. Unfortunately, many still believe that service consists of largely of traditional personal contact, expensive rush deliveries as repeated “favors” for a regular customer, or maintaining a deep inventory so they can always fill in when a customer runs out.

Distribution businesses still have value because they can benefit tremendously from technology. Among businesses, distribution is one that can best adapt to automated improvements. A successful company has:

  • CRM software that proactively announces when a customer is past an expected order date, and profiles what he is buying from you and what he isn’t.
  • Pricing comparisons for different suppliers and terms
  • Rapid cost/benefit analysis to take advantage of purchasing opportunities without overstocking, along with rapid e-broadcast capability to judge customer interest level in a deal before placing your order.
  • Customized ordering capacity for customers, where they can look at information about their usage and projections online.
  • Economic Order Quantity and inventory optimization software
  • Routing, fleet maintenance and fuel consumption programs

As a distributor, your best weapon against technology is technology.

Amazon has announced the opening of scores of satellite warehouses to permit same-day delivery of their faster moving items. They are catching up in time and place utility. Amazon’s advantage isn’t that they have guarantee the lowest price. Their same day delivery might be useful for a last-minute birthday gift, but why would they invest in all that brick and mortar for the occasional retail purchase?

They wouldn’t. I think they are investing  with an eye towards wholesale distribution. If they are, then they don’t plan on doing it by having a zillion salesmen in the field buying lunches for customers. They will do it with technology, and small distributors who want to survive should respond in kind.

Posted in Marketing and Sales | Tagged , | 2 Comments

2 Responses to Is Distribution Dead?

  1. Passing on to clients – thanks.

  2. John….SAP/IBM Global Services has taught companies to ‘save’ through better logistics. Ship full truckloads not LTL. Thus the growth of Amazon and others as a ‘redistributors’.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Should You Sue?

This column appeared as an op-ed piece in this week’s San Antonio Business Journal titled “Most Legal Battles Played by Risk Rules.”

If you are in business for any length of time, eventually you will face a situation where the only solution appears to be the legal process.

A customer who doesn’t pay his bill, a supplier or contractor who doesn’t deliver, or an employee who leaves for a competitor and “steals” accounts all may create situations that cry out for punishment.

Sometimes just being successful seems enough to draw lawsuits, whether justified or not.

I know of one contractor who has been sued twice in recent months for a project that his company hasn’t begun.

Just being listed as a supplier in the contracts was sufficient to have him named as a defendant. His company will eventually be excused, but only after spending thousands of dollars on attorneys and motions.

Being involved in a business lawsuit comes in two flavors — as the plaintiff and as the defendant.

As a defendant, there is nothing like the initial shock and feeling of violation that comes with receiving a summons. The accusations against you may have no basis, but now they are filed with a court of law, and you’ve not had any opportunity to tell your side.

It feels like someone is standing in a crowded room yelling out lies about you, and you are forced to sit silently and let them do it.

As the plaintiff, however, it feels great to load up the claim with every bit of pain and anger the other party has caused you.

Now the other guy will know how unhappy you are. He is finally forced to listen to your issues. He will see that you are serious about making him live up to his obligations.

The most common justification that I hear for a business suit is “They need to be taught a lesson.”

Like Mattie Ross in True Grit, “You will hear from my lawyer!” is an overused threat, but one that gives immediate satisfaction to the utterer.

In business, it can be the opening shot in a process that is lengthy, distracting and expensive.

Most of us have played Parker Brothers’ “Risk- The World Conquest Game.”

In it you build up armies, and take territory by attacking. Dice rolls determine the winner of a “battle,” and the scoring system is heavily weighted to favor the defender. Experienced players know that winning and holding a territory usually requires a numerical advantage of at least three to one before starting a battle.

If you are tempted to launch legal action against another business, you would be wise to remember the strategy in Risk.

Pressing forward in litigation is likely to cost you about three times what it costs the defendant. Once he counters your claim, an unbiased judge or jury may not see your side nearly as clearly as it appears to you. Using the legal process to solve business disagreements costs time and money, and there is always a chance that you will lose.

Regardless of the outcome, you will make a permanent enemy.

Of course, there are times when a situation is so expensive or so egregious that you have no choice but pursue it to the bitter end.

Before you start, ask yourself whether you are willing to play by Risk Rules.

Posted in Entrepreneurship | Tagged | 2 Comments

2 Responses to Should You Sue?

  1. I am a lawyer and an investment advisor. I have never sued anyone or been sued, but I have negotiated many settlements for clients. Those that did not settle and chose to sue have largely been sorry. The emotional cost, the time involved and the many sleepless nights generally make you a loser even if you win.

    Most of the time, it is better to be wronged and trust that the good Lord will make it all right in the end.

  2. I have been fortunate that in all my years in business I have never sued or been sued. I have always tried to treat everyone fairly and do business with reputable people and so far it has paid off. Reasonable people can come up with equitable settlements if there are disagreements.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Unlimited Time Off From Your Business

The second “rule” on our downloadable poster “Your Rights and Obligations as a Business Owner” is:

You have the right to unlimited time off with pay.” followed by the corollary obligation; “You have an unlimited obligation to customers. Business deadlines and schedules have priority over your personal life.”

In my “Where’s Waldo” post a couple of weeks ago I discussed the impact ( or lack of it) resulting from an owner who comes and goes at changeable hours during the day. If you didn’t read it, the reality is that most employees don’t know where you are when you are out of the office, and aren’t really that concerned about it.

The number of hours an owner works in a day or week are often influenced by what he or she thinks the employees will think. The same isn’t true for vacations. Employees earn vacations and take them. They expect the boss will do the same. In the absence of any morale impact, why then are so many owners reluctant to take more than a few days away from the business?

They are afraid that the business will fail without their constant attention.

A huge majority of the entrepreneurs whom I coach list “more time away from the business” as a top goal. Many haven’t had a vacation longer than a 4 day weekend in years. A few take a week with family annually. Very few take two weeks at a time.

In a start up business the owner is usually the primary revenue generator. If the owner goes away, the income goes away. That isn’t what I am discussing.

I’m talking about companies with ten, thirty or even 100 employees where the boss is chained to the business all year. There are clearly people to do the work of the business. Sales will continue, invoices will be sent, money collected. Why then, is the owner unable to leave?

The rationalizations vary, but they fall within a narrow range. “I don’t have anyone who can price orders like I can.” “I’m the only one who can deal with the difficult customers.” “They won’t watch our quality as closely as I do.”

It all comes down to the same thing. “I don’t trust my employees to make important decisions.” Why is that? Probably because they don’t have to. You are there all the time, and there is no risk for them in letting you make all the decisions.

Training employees to make decisions comes with some risk. They will make mistakes. In “The One Minute Manager Meets the Monkey” (Blanchard, Oncken & Burrows, 1991) there is an excellent rule of thumb for delegating decision-making authority. If the risk is small, the employee should decide, and then tell you what was done. If the risk is large, the employee decides, but checks with you before implementing. Using this simple approach trains the employee to make decisions, while keeping the risk of a bad call within reasonable boundaries.

I feel badly for the business owners who’ve never had the joy of hearing an employee make a good decision. The effect is like a narcotic. Once you realize that they can do it, you have only one problem left to overcome. That is the personal security of knowing that they need you to make all the decisions.

Here is a news flash. You own the company. You can still make decisions whenever you choose. But you can also take a real vacation.

 

Posted in Entrepreneurship, Management | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

One Response to Unlimited Time Off From Your Business

  1. I had a discussion with a restaurant owner last week; he has just a few employees. But I found it fascinating that he is able to take reasonable vacations with his family. His philosophy is, “I put my faith in God, and if the place doesn’t burn down while I’m gone, then it’s OK.”

    A little humorous, sure, but it shows that he treats vacations as important. And he does a fairly good job of preparing people to run the business while he’s gone.

    I also find it fascinating how he incorporates his faith into this decision. It’s not like he publicizes this as a Christian business or anything – but his spirituality is a natural part of how he makes decisions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

When Independence isn’t Freedom

I owe the idea for this column to my friend Tom Morton, whose Harrowgate blog  lends a considerable dose of dry Brit humor and keen business perspective to the issues of small business ownership. Give him a read. Sometimes the topical references are lost on me, but it’s great to know what we look like to our cousins across the pond (as Tom would say).

We just celebrated Independence Day. July 4, 1776 is the traditional date for the signing of the Declaration of Independence, although it took some months to collect the scribbles of each of the members of the Continental Congress, and another eight years before we were recognized by the Kingdom of Great Britain.

We don’t celebrate March 4th, 1789, and the vast majority of Americans (Dare I say virtually all?) couldn’t tell you on a bet what happened on that date. That’s the date when the Constitution of the United States of America became effective after ratification, and we actually became a nation.

Ratification was an interesting process in itself. The Founding Fathers were smart enough to know that unanimity would be impossible. It put too much power into the hands of the last few holdouts, who could and would demand special concessions. So they put into the Constitution a provision that once it was approved by 75% of the states, it was binding on all of them.

How do you bind a sovereign entity that hasn’t agreed to be bound? Good question. I’m glad we got past that one, somehow. It was an interesting exercise in peer pressure.

This bit of governance sleight-of-hand reflected the issue that faced the states after winning their independence from England. Highly sensitive to the power of a central government, the thirteen states had begun under Articles of Confederation that left each of them free to make their own independent decisions, without any authority over them to force coordination or cooperation.

Any business owner can imagine an organization of thirteen partners who can opt in or out of every day-to-day decision. You wouldn’t have a company, and America didn’t have a country. It had a huge war debt, and thirteen partners who refused to assume the liability for it. It had no army, no treasury to speak of, and no cohesive voice in external affairs.

Our little experiment in citizen government had rapidly deteriorated into an insolvent laughingstock. We were independent, but our own skepticism about rules had deprived us of the freedom to function as an entity. Fortunately, we had some brilliant men, especially John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton who could not only conceive a workable solution, but could put together sufficient support to make it work.

Like any de novo structure, the Constitution was flawed. As soon as it became effective Congress went to work on the Bill of Rights. The first two articles were defeated. One set the minimum number of people to be represented by one congressman at 50,000. (Thank goodness – we could have 6,300 Congressmen today!) The second, delaying pay increases voted by legislators for themselves until the next session, was finally passed as the 27th Amendment in 1992. (What does 200 years matter for a good idea?)

The basic structure of the Constitution has held up for over two centuries. Whether you agree with the current residents of each branch or not, the separation of powers between the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary functions of the Federal Government remains vital and relevent to this day.

Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, pulled off a neat bit of Quantitative Easing himself. He consolidated all the states’ debts for the war into the Federal Treasury. Like QE and Constitutional ratification, it was another bit of sleight-of-hand. The Federal Government still had no resources, but the states were suddenly free of war debt and credit-worthy again.

There is no doubt that our Founding Fathers, especially Jefferson and Adams, would be aghast at the power concentrated in the Federal Government today. Hamilton? Probably not so much. After all, he originally proposed filling the office of President with someone who would be elected for life. Most of the others weren’t as enthused about merely trading one King George for another.

Posted in Thoughts and Opinions | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

One Response to When Independence isn’t Freedom

  1. Doug Roof says:

    Great job of weaving together some of the most important and interesting facts regarding the birth of the United States of America. Commentaries like this are what make each 4th of July particularly meaningful for me. Also a reminder that no great undertaking begins perfectly, that virtually every success requires a little luck, and that any institution or process can stray from orignial intent if not closely monitored and reviewed over time.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Where’s Waldo?

An old New Yorker cartoon depicts two men walking down the streets of Manhattan. “The think I like most about being the Boss is that you get to make your own hours.” one says. “Yes,” the other replies, “as long as you don’t mind 24 hours a day.”

The time commitment of owning a business is one of the biggest complaints of owners. It is so prevalent that I made it the first item on my Business Owners’ Rights satirical labor poster. When I work with entrepreneurs on their goals and objectives, “Less time in the business” is usually one of the owner’s top priorities.

Time is simultaneously the biggest burden and the biggest reward of being a boss. As an owner, your time is both more and less flexible than that of your employees. You schedule vacations when you wish and without limit, but only when the business permits you to be absent. You can leave early, if there isn’t something pressing in your company that requires you to stay late. You can go to the gym at lunch time, if you get to take a lunch break at all.

For most owners, the business consumes so much of our personal time that we have little guilt about the personal time we take during business hours. That’s fair, and it is small enough reward in relation to the total commitment your company requires.

Yet many owners worry about the message they are sending to employees when they are absent. “Do they think I’m home watching television?” “Do they know that I’m in a long business meeting, trying to land a customer who will pay their salaries for a month?” An owner’s concern about the business can become paranoia about always sending the right message, and always being the example for others to follow.

In reality, most employees are more concerned about doing their job than where you are at the moment. When I call a business and ask for the owner, the answer is frequently “He’s not here right now.” In such cases, I’ll ask (for both of our convenience) “Do you know when he will be back?” Unless I’m speaking with the boss’ assistant, the response is almost always negative. The employees don’t know where he (or she) is, what he is doing, or when he will return. When you are gone, you are gone. When you are there, you are there.

You might be playing golf, but perhaps it is with a key vendor. You might be calling on a customer, or buying a new piece of equipment, or attending your kid’s school play. They don’t know, and they don’t think about it much. You are the boss, and if you are a good leader, the employees assume you are doing something that you should be doing.

There is one exception that I coach against. Some owners choose to exercise their control over time by coming in late every day. I believe that is a problem. Chronic lateness is a punishable offense in all but the most relaxed organizations. It is by definition “bad behavior.” The employees naturally assume that you were just sleeping later than they were.

Most importantly, a boss who starts his or her day an hour or more after the employees effectively creates a second starting time for each day. The first hour becomes “ramp up” time. Everyone can get a second cup of coffee, discuss the previous night’s ball game, and send someone out for breakfast. The real work usually doesn’t begin until the boss arrives.

If you have ten employees, the unproductive time of a collective lost hour each morning equals a full-time employee each week. That’s a high price to pay for your flexibility. How much more do you have to accomplish in order to generate that additional revenue?

Control over your time is a privilege of ownership. If you are going to be out of the office for an hour or a day, it has much less impact than you might fear. Just make sure that it isn’t when everyone else in the company can build it into their work flexibility as well.

Posted in Leadership, Management, Thoughts and Opinions | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *